Former DEI supporter selected as University of Florida's new president
The University of Florida Board of Trustees voted unanimously on Tuesday to select Dr. Santa J. Ono as the university's 14th president, despite intense scrutiny from conservative activists who questioned his previous support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
Who is Santa J. Ono?
Ono previously served as president of the University of Michigan, the University of British Columbia and the University of Cincinnati. A world-renowned vision researcher, he has been elected to the National Academy of Medicine and the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, among other prestigious organizations.
However, his appointment faces significant opposition due to his past advocacy for DEI initiatives. Conservative activist Christopher Rufo, who serves on New College of Florida's board of trustees, found prior statements by Ono supporting DEI programs and reposted them online. U.S. Reps. Byron Donalds and Greg Steube also expressed opposition, with Steube writing about 'grave concerns' regarding Ono's 'woke politics.'
Trending on NextShark:
Despite the criticism, Ono received the support of anti-woke Gov. Ron DeSantis, who reportedly expressed trust in school officials. Board Chair Mori Hosseini, who has focused on improving the university's national standing, also endorsed Ono, saying he is 'precisely the right person' to be president at this time and that his values 'align perfectly with ours here in the great state of Florida.'
What he's saying
Ono has since renounced his previous DEI positions. 'Over time, I saw how DEI became something else — more about ideology, division and bureaucracy, not student success,' he wrote in a widely circulated op-ed. 'That's why, as president of the University of Michigan, I made the decision to eliminate centralized DEI offices and redirect resources toward academic support and merit-based achievement. It wasn't universally popular, but it was necessary. I stood by it — and I'll bring that same clarity of purpose to UF.'
Trending on NextShark:
Ono's appointment follows the search to replace Ben Sasse, the former Nebraska senator who resigned abruptly in July 2024 after serving little more than a year. Under the proposed contract, Ono would receive a $1.5 million annual base salary plus potential bonuses and $500,000 from UF Health, with duties including preventing money from being spent on DEI or activism.
The Florida Board of Governors is expected to vote on his appointment next week.
Trending on NextShark:
This story is part of The Rebel Yellow Newsletter — a bold weekly newsletter from the creators of NextShark, reclaiming our stories and celebrating Asian American voices.
Subscribe free to join the movement. If you love what we're building, consider becoming a paid member — your support helps us grow our team, investigate impactful stories, and uplift our community.
Subscribe here now!
Trending on NextShark:
Download the NextShark App:
Want to keep up to date on Asian American News? Download the NextShark App today!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump's Favorability Rating Falls With AAPI Adults
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's favorability among Asian American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AAPI) adults has dropped significantly over the past year, according to a new poll. The AAPI Data/AP‑NORC poll shows that the decline appears to be driven by economic concerns, particularly around tariffs and inflation, with many respondents expressing growing unease over Trump's policies and rhetoric. Newsweek contacted Trump's office via online form and AAPI Equity Alliance via email outside of usual working hours on Sunday for comment. President Donald Trump waves as he arrives at Glasgow Prestwick Airport in Prestwick, Scotland, on July 25, 2025. President Donald Trump waves as he arrives at Glasgow Prestwick Airport in Prestwick, Scotland, on July 25, It Matters The shift signals changing political dynamics in one of the fastest-growing voter groups in the United States. The AAPI electorate has become more politically engaged in recent election cycles, and although it is not a voting bloc that has historically shown strong support for Trump, growing skepticism toward him could influence key battlegrounds in the 2026 midterms and beyond. As reported by the Associated Press, the poll is part of an ongoing project aimed at examining the perspectives of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders—a demographic often underrepresented in national surveys because of limited sample sizes and insufficient linguistic accessibility. The data highlights how economic anxiety and policy perceptions are shaping voter attitudes among these traditionally underrepresented communities. What to Know The national poll, conducted from June 3 to 11, 2025, surveyed 1,130 AAPI adults and found that 71 percent now hold an unfavorable opinion of Trump, up from 60 percent in December 2024. The unfavorability spike is particularly pronounced among AAPI independents, where there has been a nearly 20-point increase this year. Economic concerns appear to be a major factor. About 80 percent of AAPI adults believe Trump's proposed tariff policies would raise consumer prices. Only 40 percent expect positive outcomes like increased U.S. manufacturing, and just 20 percent anticipate job growth. A significant 65 percent of respondents say they are "extremely" or "very" worried about the possibility of a recession, compared to a national average of 53 percent who said the same in an April AP-NORC survey, the Associated Press reported. The latest poll was conducted amid Trump's recurring threats to impose new tariffs, which he says are intended to address the nation's trade imbalance. In June, inflation rose to its highest level since February, with Trump's tariff policies contributing to increased prices om everyday items, including groceries and household appliances. What People Are Saying Michael Ida, a 56‑year‑old teacher from Hawaii, said, as reported by the Associated Press: "Here in Hawaii, because we're so isolated, everything comes on a ship or a plane. We're especially vulnerable to prices rising and disruptions in the supply chain. There's definitely some anxiety there." Shopan Hafiz, a 39‑year‑old engineer from Oregon, voiced concerns over tariffs, as reported by the Associated Press: "With all the tariffs, I don't think it's going to help. All the tariffs will ultimately be paid by U.S. nationals, and inflation is going to get worse." Hafiz's decision to vote for Libertarian Party nominee Chase Oliver last year was in part in opposition to the two major U.S. parties' support for Israel in its war in Gaza, which has so far killed over 56,000 Palestinians following Hamas' October 7, 2023 attack on Israel that killed some 1,200 people and led to some 250 being captured and held in captivity. Karthick Ramakrishnan, executive director of AAPI Data, said, referring to AAPI voters, as per Associated Press: "They are not seeing big economic benefits pan out. Quite the contrary—they're seeing big economic risks on the horizon based on Trump's actions on tariffs." What Happens Next With AAPI communities making up about 7 percent of the U.S. population—and growing fastest in several key swing states—these changing views could play a significant role in shaping electoral strategies for the Republican and Democratic parties. Analysts expect further polling, increased multilingual outreach, and renewed focus on economic messaging in AAPI engagement efforts ahead of the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential race.
The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
Why Columbia gave in to Trump's extortion
On July 23, Columbia University entered into a resolution agreement with the federal government to settle claims that it didn't do enough to prevent harassment of Jewish students. Columbia promised to pay $200 million in fines, plus $21 million to settle employment discrimination claims. It also agreed to a raft of policy changes, pledging to further support Jewish students, to comply with laws banning consideration of race in admissions and hiring, to provide the government with admissions data and disciplinary information about international students, to ensure its Middle Eastern Studies programs are 'comprehensive and balanced' and to roll back DEI efforts. In return, the government agreed to close multiple civil rights investigations, release most of the $400 million in previously frozen research funding and consider future grant proposals from Columbia 'without disfavored treatment.' Earlier this month, Paramount agreed to pay $16 million to settle President Trump's claims about prejudicial editing of a CBS News '60 Minutes' interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. Though many legal experts considered the suit baseless, Paramount executives feared it might become an obstacle to a multi-billion dollar sale of the company requiring approval by the Federal Trade Commission. That approval finally came, in a two-to-one vote, on July 24. In March, Paul Weiss, one of the country's top law firms, agreed to represent clients without regard to their political affiliation and perform $40 million in pro bono work for causes supported by Trump in return for termination of a manifestly illegal and financially crippling executive order restricting the firm's security clearances and barring its lawyers from federal buildings. The firm's offense? Primarily that it had a former partner who, while serving as a Manhattan prosecutor, had overseen the criminal investigation into Trump and then written a book urging his prosecution. These three cases demonstrate that, even in long-established democracies, a leader willing to ignore legal constraints and social norms ' has the cards,' as Trump would say, to settle personal scores with his long list of enemies, using one pretext or another. Columbia, Paramount and Paul Weiss could have all chosen to fight the Trump administration in court. Confronted with demands restricting its autonomy and authority, Harvard decided to sue. Rupert Murdoch, owner of the Wall Street Journal, seems inclined to fight Trump's lawsuit over his newspaper's reporting on Trump's birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein. Faced with executive orders similar to the one directed at Paul Weiss, four other law firms chose to litigate rather than capitulate. But Columbia lacks Harvard's resources. The Wall Street Journal is not for sale. The law firms that sued did not confront as grave a risk to their billings as Paul Weiss and the eight other firms who struck similar deals. Critics have praised those choosing to fight and pilloried those choosing to settle. It is worth noting, however, that lawsuits can turn into settlements and settlements can collapse into lawsuits. Also, in these three cases, those deciding to fight cannot be made whole. Lawsuits can stop some administration tactics but cannot stop them all. Suing may prompt Trump to double down on penalties, but may also serve as a bargaining chip in settlement talks. And settlements, especially with the Trump administration, can serve as the prelude to more demands. As Claire Shipman, Columbia's interim president, put it, 'The desire for a simple narrative: capitulation versus courage, or talking versus fighting' ignores the reality 'that real-life situations are deeply complex.' No tactic will immunize a university, media corporation or law firm from a government willing to color this far outside the lines. And individual institutions have no pathway to protect the rule of law against a government willing to ignore it. Columbia's settlement does set a dangerous precedent. As Joseph Slaughter, a Columbia faculty member, stated, the agreement normalizes 'political interference in teaching, research and the pursuit of truth.' The administration is already using the settlement as a template for negotiations with other universities, including Harvard, Cornell, Duke, Northwestern and Brown. In our view, Columbia — which cannot survive as a research university without substantial funding from the federal government — had little choice but to cut a deal. Harvard may yet come to the same conclusion. It has won some short-term victories and will likely win more. But even if the university wins every case it brings, it cannot compel the government to award it future grants, issue visas to foreign nationals seeking to study or work at Harvard or block every perversely creative form of intimidation the administration dreams up. So even when it loses in court, the Trump administration still wins. Its goal is not just to intimidate its direct targets, but the sectors the targets represent: higher education, the media and law firms. These are the mainstays of the civil society of any democracy. Not coincidentally, they also house many of the president's most visible critics. Colleges and universities that care about their research funding, or fear the burdens of trumped-up civil rights investigations, must think twice about pursuing any action likely to incur the administration's ire. For this reason, many of them are already engaging in ' anticipatory obedience ' — terminating DEI programs, mandating tougher punishments for campus protesters and shying away from public statements on sensitive issues. As U.S. District Judge Richard Leon wrote when striking down Trump's executive order against the law firm WilmerHale, 'the order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!' Law firms are listening, and even though those that sue are winning, a growing number are declining to take cases likely to upset the Justice Department, which is on the verge of becoming on a wholly owned subsidiary of the Trump Organization. And as the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has observed, Paramount's settlement in the '60 Minutes' case sends a 'chilling message to journalists everywhere.' Authoritarian governments routinely seek to undermine civil society, but strong popular opposition can force a change in behavior. Most Americans disapprove of Trump's assault on higher education and the legal system, but they can do more to make their voices heard — in the organizations they support, with their elected representatives and, of course, at the ballot box.
Axios
7 hours ago
- Axios
What to do when you're a Trump target, corporate edition
In an instant, a company can get caught in the crosshairs of a Truth Social post from President Trump, and suddenly that business is on the hook for changing its flagship product, brand name, supply chain — or else. Why it matters: These posts can throw businesses off course by threatening their revenue streams and confusing their employees and customers. The big picture: Business leaders have developed coping strategies in response. Here's what works (and what doesn't): Don't lash out. Companies are a lot more careful about being publicly critical of this administration. Do meet privately. The savviest CEOs "don't humiliate Trump, they talk with him privately," says Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a professor at the Yale School of Management. Also helpful: Saying nice things about the president publicly. Do something that looks like appeasement. Get out in front of the White House by taking steps to please Trump — ditching DEI, announcing new factories or making approving statements. "Giving the White House a win on something has forever been a good strategy," says Michael Robinson, CEO of the Montgomery Strategies Group, a strategic communications and public affairs firm. And it is particularly true in this administration. "Let them take the victory lap," he says. Where it stands: Trump has made a habit of front-running corporate announcements or forcing the hand of some of America's largest companies, whether on social media or through sweeping proclamations and executive orders. He's declared the arrival of cane-sugar Coca-Cola, demanded the Washington Commanders change their name and taken credit for Apple's re-shoring announcement. "Every company is just one Truth Social post away from being thrown into the political crosshairs," Robinson tells Axios. "I've known three generations of CEOs. This is the toughest administration to work with," Sonnenfeld says. Between the lines: There's been building frustration and resentment among businesses, particularly over how erratically tariff policy has unfolded, according to a senior consultant who asked to be anonymous because the consultant represents multiple companies at the White House. There's a growing belief that negotiations with the administration don't hinge on business imperatives, but are instead "all about quid pro quo." "There's very little policy or substantive discussions happening, two issues that matter most for many businesses." Friction point: The transactional, deal-making nature of this administration is chipping away at corporate reputation and trust. For example, CBS says the decision to end " The Colbert Show" can be attributed to financials. Others say it's actually a way to appease the administration — and regulators — ahead of its parent company's merger with Skydance Media. Reality check: This isn't a new strategy — companies have long tried to please the White House. Administrations have picked winners and losers before — the Biden administration favored labor unions, for example, and put roadblocks up in front of the crypto industry. The other side: The only factor guiding the President is what's in the best interest of Americans, says Kush Desai, a White House spokesman. "The Administration is working hand in glove with the private sector to deliver for the American people. American companies voluntarily dropping artificial ingredients, ending racist DEI policies, and investing in American manufacturing is reflective of how this close cooperation is delivering mutually beneficial wins." Zoom out: It's one thing for a president to make asks of companies, but this has been going further — with a White House delving into minutiae and issuing explicit threats. That's particularly challenging for small companies, says Peter Cohan, a management professor at Babson College who has been interviewing executives on how they're dealing with tariffs. "Most businesses can't get to the White House."
